Yes, no doubt you are right. And yet I, and most people on earth continue to believe.
Perhaps if you came up with a better explanation.
There’s plenty of better explanations for anything you can try to explain with God. Given that God is something people claim exist with zero facts and zero logic to support it, even a simple “I don’t know” is a far superior explanation than God for anything and everything.
I refer you to my friend, Jim Burklo and Progressive Christianity. You don’t have to believe the bible is factual to be a Christian.
Most people on Earth thought the Sun rotated around us, not so long ago. What does the popularity of an idea have to do with anything?
I can come up with one just as good, why don’t you believe that one?
Deceptive simplification-you are implying that most people on Earth believe in the same deity, and you know that isn’t true.
I have repeatedly said I do not know. I simply have hope and faith. Faith, as has been stated endless times before, is the belief in things not seen.
I find prefect logic in belief in God. Occam’s Razor states (oddly) we ought not to crete needless deities. (That is to say we ought not to create overly-complex solutions.) On one hand we have the belief that in the beginning there was nothing, which then got very dense before exploding and making everything, on the other hand we have the very neat and simple explanation of God.
Which better meets the rules of logic?
Prove to me there is a Graviton and I suppose you would have some sort of argument, but in truth, you are simply reporting your belief in things you have not seen nor clearly understand. Sorry, I fail to see a large difference between your belief in Gravitons and the Big Bang and my belief in Deity.
What is remarkable how intolerable my faith is to you. I on the other hand really do not care about your faith system, nor do I wish to change it.
The belief in “nothing”, since “God” is not a simple explanation, fails to answer the question of where God came from, and isn’t defined well if at all. Plus, your “explanation” of the Big Bang is terrible. and unlike God, the Big Bang has quite a lot of evidence for it, and doesn’t ignore physical laws.
Would you have said the same thing about molecules? Atoms? Gravitons, like other hypothetical particles have theories describing them and things they explain; they fit in the world as we know it. “God” is simply pulled out of nothing; a baseless claim that explains nothing. There’s simply no rational reason to believe in God, nor does believing in God advance our understanding of anything in any way.
And, there’s the obvious fact that science has a long history of discovering the facts, of proving itself right or wrong sooner or later; religion has a long claim of being flat out wrong, over and over again. Religion lacks credibility.
Really? You have disproven Deism? Please do tell, the world awaits.
Faith these days seems to be belief in things not only not seen, but in things for which none of the expected evidence exists - in fact, belief in the face of evidence.
You don’t quite have the Razor right. First, it is entities not deities of course. But the Razor says to go with the simplest solution which fits the facts, not the absolute simplest. An infinite God who knows when each sparrow falls is the most complex thing in our out of the universe. Complexity is not directly proportional to the number of letters in the things name.
No one should believe in gravitons the way you seem to believe in God. We might provisionally accept them, but the most important thing is to test the hypothesis. We did that for neutrinos, and found them, and we’re working in Higgs bosons now. How would you test the God hypothesis? What kind of a world would you expect to see with a God (starting from first principles) and what kind without a god? My model of a godless world is that there are random geological events that care not for people, that everything we see has a natural explanation, that the need for explanations and the separation of people in the primitive world would result in many different and incompatible gods, and, finally, that as we mature ethically what our gods tell us is right follows along. The world looks a lot like this. What do you have?
How do you propose to test your hypothesis that this universe is exactly as one would predict a Godless universe to be? I would very much like to compare a universe with and one without God. Please explain how you are able to do this.
Oddly, I see acres of evidence of the existence of God every day. You interpret these phenomena one way, and I interpret them the way most people do.
I don’t need to; as has been said again and again, the burden of proof is on the believer not the skeptic.
Science does that every day. It looks, and finds explanations other than God.
You see no such thing; in all of history, no such evidence has ever been produced. At best, you are just arbitrarily labeling things with a perfectly valid explanation other than God “Goddidit” in order to feel some justification for your beliefs. And no, things that can’t be explained by science yet aren’t evidence of God, either.
Most people are wrong. Reality is not determined by a vote.
Really? I thought it would be to the one who said he could do it. I frankly admit I have no proof of the existence of God. You say you have proof to the contrary. I would very much like to see the proof.
“Put up or shut up” is the terminology used in both diplomacy and the third grade.
I said no such thing. I said that there is no rational reason to believe in God, and that religion has a relentless history of being wrong in its claims. Not to mention wildly self contradictory; why should anyone assume that your particular god is real and not all the others?
You “God” is carefully left so vague, so irrelevant that it can’t be disproved in the way you insist on; very few things can. But that also means that there’s no rational reason to believe in it.
And again; the burden of proof is on the person claiming something exists. You have no evidence God exists; you have no evidence that gods of any kind are even possible. You are just flatly asserting a belief in something that is quite obviously a wish fulfillment fantasy; with no more reason to be taken seriously than if you were claiming to actually be Gandalf.
I never said faith was rational.
I dunno. What do you think?
I am not insisting at all. I just note you said you could do it. Please, let us see your proof.
Now you are grasping the concept.
I am simply stating I look at the evidence and come to the conclusion there is a God. I frankly admit I cannot prove it.
But you are the Man of Science. Please use science and the scientific method to prove there is no God. You said you could do.
We’ll just stick with the earth, unless the god you believe in has nothing to do with us.
I’d also have to know something about the god you believe in. If you are a pure deist, the universe looks by definition just like one without a god. If you believe in a god who loves his people, you’d think he’d minimize unnecessary suffering. Sure, maybe free will means there will be murder, but you’d think he’d steer away from tsunuamis and earthquakes. You’d also think that if he cared if we believed in him he’d leave a sign or two that is clear. And of course it would be as simple for him to appear to all peoples, not just a few in the Middle East.
I can do better if you tell me something about your god.
Sorry, you are moving off topic. The questions was “How do we know that the Bible is God’s word?” The answer is “We don’t.”
Some have faith.
Yes, you did when you tried to claim religious beliefs are just as plausible as scientific theories, which ARE rational.
They are all equally garbage.
I never said I had any; nor do I need any. YOU do, however.
I already grasped it; it’s fantasy, nothing more. Religion isn’t deep or profound or meaningful;; it’s just self indulgence. “Baseless fantasy” is a good summation of all religious thought; all millennia of it is nothing but millions of words of hot air.
Because there is no such evidence.
Again I said no such thing. And again, nor do I have to; my position that there are no gods is by default correct.
Actually you said …
Frankly I misinterpreted what you said. I thought you were about to expose some obvious fact that disproves Deism. Apparently you were actually offering to discuss facts disproving some religious dogma or another.
So you theory is correct because it is true? Doesn’t that seem just a tad circular to you?
How odd, you maintain that things that are seen are not in fact real. I hold that things not seen are sometimes real.
Much of the point of Deism is that is empty of facts to discuss. A distillation of the emptiness of religion, really; a featureless god that does nothing, doesn’t show itself and about which nothing can be said. It doesn’t even make for good mythology.
And again; I don’t have to disprove it, you have to come up with some evidence for it.
No, it’s true because that’s how logic works, as has been pointed out again and again. You as the believers always do are insisting on special rules for your pet fantasy.
No, you hold that something that you may or may not have seen but refuse to specify qualifies as evidence for the existence of something that is impossible by any physical laws we know, and for whom there is no rational reason to believe in, and whose adherents have a long, long history about being wrong about their baseless guesses. In other words, you are just making it all up, or buying the lies someone else has fed you. And the way to bet is that you are completely, utterly wrong just like the billions of believers before you have always been wrong.